CEJISS 2_07.indbConcept of Middlepowerhood 1
Initial Remarks on Motivation, or Why another Study on the Landmine
Case?
Nikola Hynek 2
This article arises from dissatisfaction with predominant accounts
concer- ning changes in interactions between nongovernmental actors
and govern- ments in contemporary world politics, namely the image
of a tension between so-called state-centric and transnational
worlds. Specifi cally, it can be concei- ved of as a response to an
ongoing stream of celebratory commentaries on the alleged victory
of the transnational world over the state-centric one in what has
been hailed by commentators as a paradigmatic case: the campaign to
ban antipersonnel landmines.
The interpretation presented here can be seen as a corrective to
what seems to be a universal generalisation of the nature of the
relationship between governments and nongovernmental actors at both
the theoretical and empirical levels. In an attempt to overcome
this simplistic dichotomy, I make two argu- ments: fi rstly,
counter to the popular perception that there is tension between the
two ‘worlds,’ I argue that the landmine case suggests the emergence
of a new type of functional-symbiotic relationship between key
governments and nongovernmental actors. Secondly, while not denying
the input of nongover- nmental actors in the landmine case, it is
suggested that a crucial moment enabling the landmine campaign to
gain momentum was brought about by the
1 I would like to acknowledge and thank the International Council
for Canadian Studies for their fi nancial assistance in this
project.
2 Nikola Hynek is a lecturer and doctoral candidate in the
Department of Political Science at Masaryk University in Brno,
Czech Republic and a doctoral candidate in the Department of Peace
Studies at the University of Bradford, UK. He may be reached at:
[email protected].
JI SSCE
133
emergence of a new type of reasoning by key governments, the
Canadian one in particular. It was this change in governmental
reasoning which provided an opportunity for nongovernmental
involvement on the issue.
In order to examine the functional-symbiosis between governments
and non-governmental actors,3 it is worth examining their
interactions, in particular assessing the heuristic potential of
the two approaches known as the global- governance approach and the
governmentality approach. The former, largely infl uenced by (James
N.) Rosenau, has, over the last fi fteen years, served as the basis
for major studies addressing the interactions between governments
and non-governmental actors. This approach, however, raises a
number of problems; in particular Rosenau’s claim about the tension
and power strug- gle between the two worlds. As a means of
overcoming these shortcomings, the governmentality approach,
originally devised by Michel Foucault, can be applied. It is
precisely this dual ontology that will be contested: it is argued
that the institution of political sovereignty, which is Rosenau’s
basic premise for his distinction between the two worlds, is an
indeterminate criterion for explaining interactions between
governments and nongovernmental actors insofar as there have been
signifi cant differences in ways of organising the exercise of
sovereignty among various states. The main objective of this secti-
on is to propose a theoretical apparatus capable of analysing the
main object of study, i.e. the changes in the interactions between
some governments and nongovernmental actors.
Regarding the second argument, the governmentality approach is
utilised for examining changes in governmental rationality in some
states, most notab- ly Canada, before and during the campaign to
ban landmines. It will be argued that the functional-symbiotic
relationship between the Canadian government and nongovernmental
actors in the landmine case was a result of the shift from what is
termed here the ‘governmentality of organised modernity’ to the
‘governmentality of advanced liberalism’. It is argued that the
institution of state sovereignty per se is an indeterminate
explanatory criterion with regard to the landmine case since both
of the above governmentalities can be distin- guished from one
another on the basis of different organisation and exercise of
state sovereignty: while it was exclusively the government who
exercised state sovereignty during the former, the latter allowed
nongovernmental actors to participate in this conduct, thus
effectively producing the joint exercise of political
sovereignty.4
In the fi rst instance, attention will be directed towards the
concept of middlepowerhood and its political function as a
legitimising factor behind the so-called ‘New Diplomacy’ through
which Canada’s exercise of political
3 The term ‘nongovernmental actors’ is used to refer to non-profi
tmaking and charitable organi- sations pursuing a common interest
or common good on behalf of a wider community.
4 The terms ‘state sovereignty’ and ‘political sovereignty’ are
used in this article interchange- ably.
Humanitarian Arms Conrtrol and Middlepowerhood |
134
sovereignty, informed by the governmentality of advanced
liberalism, was conducted. Afterwards, the shift in
governmentalities will be demonstrated on the issue of production,
funding and the use of knowledge about security. Figure 1 on page
156 is an illustration of these dynamics.
The scope of the fourth part, which represents an empirical
analysis in the critical re-examination of the landmine case,
focuses on the interactions of the Canadian government with various
NGOs subsumed under the umbrella of the Mines Action Canada (MAC),
which has itself been part of a wide transnatio- nal advocacy
network, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL).
Specifi c attention will be paid to the period of 1993–1997; the
period starting with the launch of the ICBL and concluding with the
signature of the Ottawa Convention, though further developments and
the consequences of the shift in governmentality are also outlined
and refl ected upon.
Foucault and the ‘New Wave’ of Friendly Theorising: Shifts in
Governmentalities and the Creation of the Biopolitical
Individual
The global governance approach is theoretically premised upon
complex interactions between different types of actors at various
levels of world politics. Changes in spheres of authority and
reconfi gurations of power are claimed to be two of the most
important consequences of these unprecedented dynamics. Political
power is reputedly being transferred from an eroding nation-state
to so-called global civil society, and this process is seen as
highly desirable as it makes world politics more democratic
(Rosenau, 2002, 70–86; 1997, 308–10; 330–63; 1992, 1–29; 1990; for
an application to the landmine case see Price, 1998; Mathew and
Rutherford, 2003).5 The relationship between nation-states and
nongovernmental actors can thus be viewed as a zero-sum game in
which the gain of one side automatically means a loss for the other
side (for an excel- lent analysis, see Sending and Neumann
2006).
The (now) classic text of such thinking, in terms of academic infl
uence, is Rosenau’s Turbulence in World Politics. Here and
elsewhere, the author claims that the nation-state is losing its
power, and that in the near future world politics will, as a
result, be characterised by the ‘bifurcation of macro global
structures into what is called the two worlds of world politics’
(Rosenau, 1990, 5). He continues by arguing that the struggle
between non-state actors and nation-states will continue, and
ultimately produce a stalemate between two competing entities: ‘an
uneasy tension between the two worlds would emerge as the
fundamental condition of global politics’ (Rosenau, 1990, 447,
453–4,
5 For a similar argument, compare to Cronin (1999, 3–40). Put
differently, since there is no logic of anarchy present (Wendt,
1992, 391–425), there is none for state sovereignty either (cf.
Biersteker and Weber, 1996; Bartelson, 1995).
| Nikola Hynek
135Humanitarian Arms Conrtrol and Middlepowerhood |
emphasis added). Rosenau’s argument is reiterated by cosmopolitan
democ- racy scholars, Held and McGrew (2002). These authors argue
that global governance is characterized by predominantly
horizontally stretched networks (global civil society) as opposed
to the traditional, and largely hierarchical structures of
nation-states, resulting in several infrastructures of governance
with political authority being fragmented, complex, and overlapping
(Held and McGrew, 2002, 1–24).
Rosenau’s metaphor based on the ideas of rivalry (the transfer of
power) and irreconcilability (tension between the two worlds)
inevitably fails to account for the functional-symbiotic
interactions between key governments and nongovernmental actors as
they seem to have occurred in the landmine case. Therefore, a
theoretically more suitable approach is needed, and this can be
drawn from Foucault’s scholarship on governmental rationalities, or
gover- nmentalities, which allows for the possibility of addressing
the issue of fun- ctional-symbiosis between governmental and
nongovernmental actors. This governmentality approach cannot be
considered a substantive theory; rather, it is a theoretical
approach which provides the user with a series of problems as well
as techniques for solving them. The advantage over Rosenau’s fra-
mework consists in the fact that the governmentality approach does
not make any substantive claims, e.g. who are important actors,
which level of analysis to focus on, or what has been the nature of
interaction between actors, prior to the actual analysis of the
issue (cf. Dean, 1999, 149). For this reason, it can be understood
as a question-driven approach, subsumed under a broader cate- gory
of interpretive-abductive approaches, dealing predominantly with
“how” questions. The key term of the approach is that of
government, in the sense of a socio-political function (Sending and
Neumann, 2006), or as The Oxford English Dictionary (2002)
instructs us, ‘a particular system or method of controlling a
country.’6 The term generally delineates any intentional and
rational activity conducted by various actors who are using
different tech- niques and forms as well as sources of knowledge in
order to shape, affect or guide themselves, interpersonal
relationships, or even societal relationships regarding the conduct
of political sovereignty (Dean, 1999, 10–6, 259; Gordon 1991, 2–3).
It is the organisation of government and its exercise of political
sovereignty through diplomacy as its carrier within the realm of
world politics that is the main interest of this article.
Although Foucault himself was largely focused on examining the
concept of governmental rationalities within the confi nes of the
nation-state, the scope of my analysis goes beyond national
boundaries (cf. Larner and Walters, 2004, 1–20; Hindess, 2004,
23–39). Strictly speaking, the frontier as a source of exclusions
must be transgressed since it gives rise to Rosenau’s
problematic
6 The above distinction between the two governmentalities also
corresponds to the passage from disciplinary society to the society
of (self)control, as suggested by Hardt and Negri (2000, 419 fn. 1)
and Deleuze’s (1988) interpretation of Foucault.
136
dual ontology. In other words, it is the practice of creating
powerful dichoto- mies (1. inside, internal Vs. outside, external;
2. the state-centred world Vs. the transnational world) that is
being contested (cf. Walker, 1993). However, transcending the
border is not intended in any sense to imply a radically plura-
list image of “anything goes”. The institution of state sovereignty
still has its importance, mainly because it is nation-states that
are the primary subjects of international public law. State
sovereignty is, nevertheless, an indeterminate criterion in terms
of explaining the dynamics between governments and non-
governmental actors: it simply does not tell us much about the
organisation of these interactions,7 hence this attempt to
re-examine the landmine case by employing the Foucauldean
governmentality approach. So how has govern- ment, as a
socio-political function, been practically conducted within the
realm of world politics as far as the landmine case is
concerned?
The argument put forward is that contemporary transformations in
world politics are transformations brought about by a shift in
governmental rationa- lities, leading to changes in actors’
activities and the level of their autonomy and responsibility. To
be specifi c, it can be observed that an increase in the autonomy,
self-regulation and responsibility of nongovernmental actors is
related to the transition from a governmentality of organised
modernity to one of advanced liberalism.8 While the rationality of
organised modernity has been manifest in attempts by governments to
fi t the interests of society as a whole to mechanisms of social
welfare, the shift to the governmentality of advanced liberalism
was quite the contrary. It was characterised by the employment of
procedures and techniques through which individuals were recreated
from ori- ginally passive political objects to active subjects and
objects of government (Cruikshank, 1999, 19–47; Dean, 1999, 40–59;
Gordon, 1991, 6–7, 35–47). During this transition, the techniques
of command changed: while the govern- mentality of organised
modernity was largely sustained through a network of dispositifs,
‘or apparatuses that produce and regulate customs, habits, and pro-
ductive practices’ (Hardt and Negri, 2000, 23; cf. Deleuze, 1992,
159–67), the governmentality of advanced liberalism can be said to
have achieved a similar effect through more subtle and appealing
ways, in the sense of a democratic arrangement in which citizens
can decide and make choices themselves. In
7 The adjective ‘neo-liberal’ does not, in this context, refer
either to neo-liberalism as a political doctrine or to the set of
constitutive macroeconomic rules known as the Washington Consen-
sus. Here, neo-liberalism is not understood as a negative force,
creating a number of social exclusions (Larner and Walters, 2004,
4), but rather as an art of government in which indi- viduals are
seen as effective and effi cient political subjects (Burchell et
al., 1991: ix).
8 An example of a study falling into the trap of considering
middlepowerhood a normative ideal is Melakopides’s (1998) Pragmatic
Idealism. The author puts forward a thesis about Ca- nadian
politicians allegedly respecting the concept of middle power and
carrying out the work of its ‘content’, which Melakopides sees as
created during the Golden Age, throughout the period between 1945
and 1995. Melakopides is consequently forced to produce a
consistent story of CFSP, regardless of what the particular PM or
ministers’ practices were like, thereby signifi cantly skewing the
account.
| Nikola Hynek
137
concrete terms, the discipline was let out from formal
institutions, diffused through society and consequently
internalised by citizens themselves; one can then think of it as
biopower and the entire mechanism as biopolitical since it has been
the bodies and brains of political subjects that have ‘regulate[ed]
social life from its interior, following it, interpreting it,
absorbing it, and rear- ticulating it’ (Hardt and Negri, 2000,
23–4).
Although Foucault (1991) refers to the former as the
governmentality of welfare-state, this article follows Wagner’s
(1994) term, governmentality of ‘organised modernity’, also used by
Sending and Neumann (2006). It does so because the politics of
welfare is but one particular institutional manifes- tation, though
most probably the central one, of a deeper reconstitution of the
role of the individual in the society. As this article shows,
however, another example of the same shift was a redefi nition of
what counted as knowledge about landmines and who produced,
supplied and funded it, and its subsequent institutional embodiment
into the new diplomacy. With regard to the latter, this article
prefers Rose’s (1993) term governmentality of advanced liberalism
to the original one of neo-liberalism as coined by Foucault.9 The
reason is nicely captured by Dean (1999):
[the neo-liberal governmentality] refer[s] to specifi c styles of
the gene- ral mentality of rule …. [a]dvanced liberalism will
designate the broader realm of the various assemblages of
rationalities, technologies and agen- cies that constitute the
characteristic ways of governing in contemporary liberal
democracies … While neo-liberalism might be characterized as the
dominant contemporary rationality of government, it is found within
a fi eld of contestation in which there are multiple rationalities
of government and a plurality of varieties of neo-liberalism (Dean,
1999, 149–50).
Subsequently, the governmentality approach poses three challenges
to the global-governance approach. Firstly, that it is not useful
to examine interacti- ons between nation-states as a generic
category and nongovernmental actors because it seems
counterproductive due to the different experiences of vari- ous
states. The focus is shifted, instead, onto an alternative agency
of middle power, that is, the interactions between the Canadian
government and the nongovernmental actors involved in the landmine
case. Such a perspective puts greater emphasis on the political
function of specifi c collective national identities (i.e. the
self-constructed status), thereby avoiding the pitfalls of uni-
versal accounts associated with an examination of generic
identities based on the institution of state sovereignty as its
lowest common denominator (Ruggie, 1998, 14).
9 This method is typical of Welsh’s (2004) At Home Abroad, in which
the author argues that the only way for Canada to reinvigorate her
foreign and security policy is to move beyond the notion of middle
power.
Humanitarian Arms Conrtrol and Middlepowerhood |
138
The second challenge is in regard to Rosenau’s claim about the
erosion of the nation-state and the tension between the two worlds.
Specifi cally, I main- tain that in certain states – for example,
in Canada’s case as a self-constructed middle power – the autonomy
(including independent agenda-setting), self- regulation and
responsibility of nongovernmental actors does not confl ict with
the interests of the Canadian government, but actually support it
by enhancing the country’s symbolic status and infl uence in world
politics. Canada’s invol- vement in the landmine case – both in
terms of its governmental and nongo- vernmental actors – is a
powerful example of how both entities cooperated in a
functional-symbiotic manner.
Finally, the conceptualisation of power differs from Rosenau’s
perspective: although the governmentality of advanced liberalism
can be seen as a kind of degovernmentalisation of the state (Rose,
1993, 296), this does not by any means imply Rosenau’s transfer of
power. Here, power is not understood as concentrated, possessive,
stable and localized in the Weberian sense, but, instead, as a
ubiquitous, relational, constitutive and spatio-temporally con-
tingent phenomenon, defi ned in terms of the practical tasks of
government (Gordon, 1991, 3). It is therefore argued that the
landmine case was not an example of a transfer of power, but simply
an increase in the responsibility and autonomous activity of
nongovernmental actors.
The construction of the problematic of landmines and its subsequent
insti- tutionalisation into the ICBL by nongovernmental actors can
usefully be consi- dered in the context of the shift from the
rationality of organised modernity to the one of advanced
liberalism. To do this, it is necessary to look at changes of
knowledge about security and thus investigate the
government/nongovernmen- tal-actor nexus. While the rationality of
organised modernity is characterised by a tight bond forged between
the government and knowledge about security, the rationality of
advanced liberalism allows the dissolution of this bond, resulting
in a situation where knowledge is being produced and subsequently
supplied to the government by non-governmental actors. However, fi
rst it is worth giving some attention to what has been seen as a
crucial condition for the successful implementation of the
rationality of advanced liberalism in Canada’s exercise of
political sovereignty in the landmine case – the category of middle
power as a legitimising factor of the so-called ‘New
Diplomacy’.
Middlepowerhood, the New Diplomacy and a Shift in the Typifi cation
of Knowledge about Security
An analysis of the discourse and political practices of Canada’s
post-Cold War foreign and security policy indicates the
incorporation of advanced-libe- ral procedures into the concept of
middle power. Yet there is nothing inevitable about the above
combination: it is more a result of historical contingency than
universal and linear development.
| Nikola Hynek
139
How has this link been forged and what has been its purpose? The
answers to these questions are connected to the signifi cance of
middlepowerhood as well as the new diplomacy in the Canadian
context. The association of Canada with the category of middle
power has quite a long and interesting history. The notion came
emerged as WWII was coming to an end: it was Canadian diplomat
Humphrey Hume Wrong who devised the functional principle in the fi
rst place, and it was subsequently adopted by the Prime Minister of
that time, Mackenzie King, for his own concept of middle power.
Later, Canada’s government unsuccessfully sought to insert a
reference to a special category of middle power into the UN Charter
at the San Francisco Conference of 1945. Despite the absence of
formal recognition, the category of middle power, underpinned by
active internationalism and the belief in multilateral practices
within the UN, became the bedrock of Canada’s Golden Age in foreign
policy (1945–1957) (Chapnick, 1999, 73–82). As I have argued
elsewhere (Thomsen and Hynek 2006), Canada’s foreign and security
policy had as its distingui- shing feature, a notable discrepancy
between political discourse, which has given the impression of
linear and continuous progress, often achieved by references to the
Golden Age and middle power, and practical policymaking as
conducted by each Canadian government since the WWII onwards. It is
the discursive continuity that has helped to form the perception of
Canada as a country with a distinctive foreign and security policy,
imbued with a norma- tive ideal of middlepowerhood.
The suggested discrepancy between the linearity of discourse and
the variability of policymaking concerning Canadian foreign and
security poli- cy is an important fi nding with respect to the
methodology associated with middlepowerhood. Initially, it
highlights the futility of examining Canadian involvement in world
politics against the normative ideal of a middlepower- hood that is
immutable in time.10 However, another available strategy, the
dismissal of the category of middle power, is not seen as a viable
alternative either since middlepowerhood has been playing an
important legitimising function in the introduction of the
country’s various practices – most recently the new diplomacy based
on the governmentality of advanced liberalism – the- reby
preserving the semblance of continuous and linear development.11
How- ever, a third strategy avoids both the pitfalls of the
normative-idealist view
10 Although this point could raise a question about the possible
cooption of nongovernmental actors by the government, or the Trojan
horse phenomenon, available accounts (cf. Cameron et al., 1998,
especially chapters 2, 3, 10–11, 19–21; for the case of small arms
and light weapons, Krause, 2002, 258–9), as well as a series of
personal qualitative interviews which I conducted with
representatives of NGO community (MAC, Oxfam Canada and Physicians
for Global Survival) and governmental offi cials at the Department
of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in Ottawa during April
2006, do not suggest this.
11 An opinion poll from spring 1996 suggests the considerable infl
uence of the MAC’s mandate, since 73 per cent of Canadians – as
opposed to 22 per cent of Americans – supported the total ban of
APLs (cit. in Tomlin, 1998, 211 fn. 25).
Humanitarian Arms Conrtrol and Middlepowerhood |
140
of middlepowerhood as well as resisting the temptation to reject it
altogether. It can alternatively be understood as a political
category constructed by rela- tively autonomous decision-making
circles immediately after WWII (Pratt, 1983–4), with its importance
stemming from the positive endorsement of both the Canadian public
and international society. The category of middle power is thus
considered an empty form which needs to be – and has actually been
– refi lled again and again, hence Cox’s (1989, 827) assertion that
‘the middle power is a role in search of an actor.’
Although Foucault dates neo-liberal governmentality back to the
1970s, its manifestation in the theme of the present analysis could
only be discerned after the Cold War was over. The reason for this
delay lies in the fact that the ideological polarisation of world
politics effectively created an environment where self-constructed
middle powers, like Canada, Norway, or the Nether- lands, were
swayed by the bipolarity between the US and the USSR. Andrew Cooper
(1997, 1–24) therefore speaks of middle powers as (ideological and
military) followers of the US during the Cold War, as compared to
their newly expressed functional leadership qualities in the
post-Cold War era. This post- Cold War, niche-oriented ‘New
Diplomacy’, discursively wrapped in a popular packaging of ‘middle
power’, lies at the heart of the change of governmental
rationality, and as such is characterised by the extent to which
nongovern- mental actors have a signifi cant share in the process
of government, or, in Foucault’s own words, in the exercise of
political sovereignty (Foucault, 1989, 296). The distinction made
earlier by Held and McGrew between horizontally stretched (‘truly’
democratic) networks of nongovernmental actors and ver- tically
erected hierarchical structures of the nation-state does not hold
water when the nature of the new diplomacy is examined (cf. Bátora,
2005). While the diplomacy manifesting the governmental rationality
of organised moder- nity was closely associated with exclusivity,
hierarchy, a culture of secrecy, and one-way communication, the new
diplomacy, on the contrary, refl ects the governmentality of
advanced liberalism by its inclusiveness, multistakehol- der
character, two-way communication based on the norm of transparency,
and, last but not least, largely horizontal and
functional-symbiotic interactions between governments and
nongovernmental actors.
The chief advocate of the new diplomacy, the Canadian ex-minister
of foreign affairs, Lloyd Axworthy, readily referred to alleged
similarities between his new diplomacy and the diplomatic practices
of Lester Pearson, the main protagonist of the Golden Age. Anyone
seriously interested in governmental rationalities and diplomacy as
its carrier in world politics should immediately reject such a
parallel. Pearson’s diplomacy drew its strength from its exclusivi-
ty and secrecy, thus corresponding exactly with the main
characteristics of the governmentality of organised modernity,
whereas Axworthy’s was exactly the opposite: media-oriented, with
radical public speeches, and a defi nite openness as well as the
involvement of nongovernmental actors in both domestic
decision-
| Nikola Hynek
141
making processes and international negotiations (Cooper, 2000,
9–10). In line with the suggestion that a self-constructed status
matters, it appears that the category of middle power has, in
Canada’s case, served a useful, though contingent, function as a
kind of discursive cement between completely dis- parate political
practices associated with two very different governmentalities.
Axworthy’s intention was, in fact, to use the category of middle
power, which had been highly popular among the Canadian public and
the international community, as a legitimising factor for a
radically new exercise of political sovereignty informed by the
governmentality of advanced liberalism.
The character of the political involvement of the Canadian
government in the landmine case, shaped by the rationality of
advanced liberalism, was expressed in developing a new functional
relationship between the Canadian government on the one hand, and
nongovernmental actors as well as other governments on the other.
It is useful at this point to analyse this shift against the
background of the production of knowledge about security. I argue
that although Cooper’s macrostructural explanation gives us the
sense of why it was impossible for Canada to embrace more
advanced-liberal practices up until the 1990s (the ideological
polarization; followership Vs. functional lea- dership), it
provides us with little insight into how it was possible to exclude
nongovernmental actors within this arrangement.
The governmentality of organised modernity typifi ed the
environment whe- re knowledge about security was exclusively
produced by, and bound up with, the government. Correspondingly, it
was the government who monopolised the defi nition of what was and
what was not knowledge about security. The direct consequence of
this ideological polarisation was, therefore, a military-based
conception of national security, which effectively closed the
discursive space concerning possible alternative security concepts.
The prohibition of nongo- vernmental actors’ access to the
production and defi nition of what counted as knowledge about
security was then an inevitable corollary of this situation.
Unlike the governmentality of organised modernity, the
governmentality of advanced liberalism rests on the premise that
‘man appears in his ambiguous position as an object of knowledge
and a subject that knows’ (Foucault, 1974, 323, emphases added).
Thus, the crucial change has been marked by the trans- fer of power
execution (but not the power per se; power becomes de-centred) from
the government to its citizens through which the citizen was
constituted as an active political subject. This change in turn
allowed for the emergence of the individual as the object of
discourse, most notably through the articulation of an
individual-centred human security paradigm at both the levels of
practi- cal policy-making and security studies. Finally, the
departure from a narrowly defi ned, military-based concept of
national security and the subsequent for- mulation of an
individual-centred conception of human security, as promoted by the
Canadian government, was the crucial moment in the opening of the
discursive space about security. This was precisely what was needed
to enable
Humanitarian Arms Conrtrol and Middlepowerhood |
142
the individual to become an effective and effi cient political
subject of govern- ment (Foucault, 1991), thereby exercising
political sovereignty together with the government.
What can be observed in this development is the dissolution of two
different bonds forged during the governmentality of organised
modernity, namely, (i) a bond between the government and knowledge
about security and (ii) a bond concerning conditionality between
funding and a particular type of knowledge production. With regard
to the fi rst bond, knowledge about security in the new order was
produced and subsequently supplied to the government to an incre-
asing extent by non-governmental actors. These actors began to fi
ll a new- ly open discursive space with the knowledge based on
their own expertise, experience and interpretation of what counts
as knowledge about security, and the government used this
knowledge, at least in the landmine case and other humanitarian
campaigns, as their own. The reason for this, from the advanced-
liberal governmentality perspective, is apparent: the government
now consi- dered nongovernmental actors as the most effi cient
source of human-centred knowledge about landmines and, as a result
of a changed economy of power manifest in the government’s
heightened sensitivity to this knowledge, the number of
nongovernmental actors involved as well as the volume of the new
knowledge increased.
As far as the dissolution of the second bond is concerned, after
nongover- nmental actors were enabled to enter the discourse about
security, a functio- nal-symbiotic relationship between the two
entities was created: nongovern- mental actors began supplying the
government with their knowledge about security in exchange for
receiving funding which effectively enabled them to conduct their
further activities associated with knowledge production in large
measure.12 This dissolution, clearly the extension of the fi rst
one, can thus be conceived of as the termination of ideological
conditionality between funding and knowledge production, as was
known in the rationality of orga- nised modernity during which the
government was both the source of know- ledge and of funding.
Furthermore, the double dissolution also indicates for the
governmentality of advanced liberalism a symptomatic increase in
non- governmental actors’ autonomy and responsibility. Not only did
these actors produce knowledge about landmines, but, most
importantly, they managed to establish and frame the landmine issue
as a humanitarian problem, in contrast to the previously dominant
military perspective, and pass this perception to the Canadian
government.
The functional-symbiotic relationship between the Canadian
government and non-governmental actors can be graphically
summarized as follows:
12 The formal name of the CCW Convention is ‘The Convention on
Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional
Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have
Indiscriminate Effects.’
| Nikola Hynek
Figure I. Governmentalities and Typifi cations of Knowledge about
Security
Humanitarian Arms Conrtrol and Middlepowerhood |
144
Re-Examining the Landmine Case: An Empirical Analysis This section
offers empirical evidence, in this reinterpretation of the
landmine case, for the argument that the nature of the relationship
between governmental and non-governmental actors is one of
functional-symbiosis. In concrete terms, it deals with changes in
the nature of interactions between the Canadian government and
nongovernmental actors subsumed under the umbrella group, MAC,
which has itself been part of a wide transnational advocacy network
ICBL. This re-examination refutes the claim of the majo- rity of
empirical studies on landmines (Horwood, 2003; Lint, 2003; Mathew
and Rutherford, 2003; Williams, 2000; Thakur, 1999; Price, 1998)
that this case was an unprecedented victory of the transnational
world which allegedly challenged and pressurised the state-centred
one. The aim of this section is not to provide the reader with a
comprehensive descriptive account of the landmine case, but rather
with an analysis of its key moments in respect of the establishment
of a functional-symbiotic, Canadian government/NGO nexus between
1993 and 1997.
Nongovernmental actors producing alternative, human-oriented know-
ledge about landmines had already existed during the Cold War and
the acti- vities of the International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC) can serve as an example of this (Maresca and Maslen, 2000).
The importance of ideological depolarisation after the Cold War can
therefore be seen in the fact that govern- ments suddenly had, at
least theoretically, more political space for independent action
and expression of their innovative procedures. However, there were
no real signifi cant openings in the previously closed discourse on
security immediately after the end of the Cold War. The activities
of nongovernmental actors were therefore still largely isolated
from the activities of governments. The most signifi cant post-Cold
War effort to solve the landmine crisis came from the NGOs active
in demining and in providing medical help. In 1992 they established
the ICBL, promoting the total ban of antipersonnel landmi- nes
(APLs) (English, 1998, 122) on the premise that the use of APLs was
violating both principles of the ‘Hague branch’ of international
humanitarian law, i.e. the principles of proportionality and
discrimination (Mathews and McCormack, 1999).
The fi rst signifi cant – and, as later developments would show,
cardinal – opening of security discourse for nongovernmental actors
took place in Cana- da in 1993. Although Canada was one of a few
countries fi nancially supporting demining activities at the very
end of the Cold War (ICBL, 2000), it was not until 1993 that the
government’s practices could be associated with the new
advanced-liberal governmentality. A catalyst in this development
was when, in 1993, the Liberal Party of Canada (LP) returned to
government after nine years as the opposition party and made
important changes to Canada’s inter- national and security policy.
Their detailed and radical election programme, ‘Creating
Opportunities’ (also known as the ‘Red Book’), emphasized the
fact
| Nikola Hynek
145
that ‘Canadians are asking for a commitment from government to
listen to the- ir views, and to respect their needs by ensuring
that no false distinction is made between domestic and foreign
policy’ (LP of Canada, 1993, 104–6). A crucial part linked to the
opening of the security discourse for nongovernmental actors was
acknowledged in the expressed need to have ‘a broader defi nition
of nati- onal and international security’ (Ibid., 105–6). This
shift corresponds to what Dean calls governmentality ‘programmes’,
i.e. ‘explicit, planned attempts to reform or transform regimes of
practices …. [which] often take the form of a link between
theoretical knowledge and practical concerns and objectives’ (1999,
211).
After the landslide victory in the elections, the LP started to
fulfi l the electi- on promise by transforming the decision-making
process in terms of inclusivi- ty concerning nongovernmental actors
(Government of Canada, 1995, 48–9). In regard to the landmine case,
the key nongovernmental actor which began to attend governmental
meetings was the umbrella group MAC in 1995, inclu- ding, for
instance, Physicians for Global Survival, CARE, CUSO, Oxfam and
Project Ploughshares (Cameron, 1998, 432). The reaction of the NGO
com- munity to this change of governmental rationality has been
aptly summarised by Paul Hannon, Executive Director of MAC:
We had to learn, as NGOs, how to work properly … you cannot do
those things in the way it used to be organised, you know, like an
anti-nuclear pro- test [during the Cold War]. You cannot do it with
a mimeograph and a few things on a poster … you cannot be
ideological about these things, you have to go practical. And that
is why you sometimes use business models; you learn how to run an
organisation. That is the most effi cient way how to do it … You
bring in people who are different from you, with different
expertise, so good functioning NGO boards have lawyers on them,
there are fundraisers, business people, human resources experts …
We have learned that through painful way, you have to do it, that
was the part of our sophistication (personal interview by author,
Ottawa, April 27th, 2006; emphases added).
The course of these meetings suggests that the MAC seized the
opportunity to use them as a strategic forum for educating
governmental offi cials within the Department of Foreign Affairs
and International Trade (DFAIT) on landmines as a humanitarian
concern (Cameron, 1998, 432–4; Warmington and Tuttle, 1998,
48–50).13 These meetings served as a zone of socialisation, and
with the personal contribution of André Ouellet, the minister of
foreign affairs at the time, functional connections, a new
relationship and a new understanding of the issue started to emerge
(Tomlin, 1998, 191–3).
Although Canada’s government changed its stance and embraced the
call for a total ban of APLs, its attention, nevertheless, was
still directed towards the
13 The fi rst obstacle was overcome, very much in advanced-liberal
governmentality fashion, by the inclusion of representatives of the
MAC in Canada’s governmental delegation. The two entities thus
literally exercised political sovereignty together.
Humanitarian Arms Conrtrol and Middlepowerhood |
146
1995 UN review conference of the 1980 Convention on Certain
Conventional Weapons (CCW).14 The government’s stance on the
landmine issue shifted thanks to MAC’s framing of landmines as a
humanitarian concern. However, this would not have been possible
had the government not (i) previously taken decisions regarding the
participation of nongovernmental actors into the for- mal
consulting process, and (ii) extended the general notion of what
security was. At the same time, government offi cials still
believed in the appropriate- ness of UN multilateralism as a
platform for bringing about this change. The development of the CCW
conference soon showed, however, the impossibility of pushing
Canada’s radical proposal through. This was largely because the
mechanism of the conference was still underpinned by the principles
of the governmentality of organised modernity, as evidenced by the
fact that NGOs were not permitted to attend negotiations, and also
that governments needed to vote unanimously for any change to take
place.15 Despite the fact that advoca- tes of incremental arms
control saw the amended II. Protocol to the CCW Convention as a
success,16 progress was simply not signifi cant enough for the
delegation advocating the non-military, human security-oriented
total ban of the entire category of weapons.
A catalytic event in the development of the landmine issue occurred
in the middle of UN negotiations in January 1996, when Lloyd
Axworthy replaced André Ouellet in his ministerial position. This
change represented a boost to Canadian efforts as Axworthy was the
most vociferous promoter of the new diplomacy. It was after
Axworthy assumed offi ce that the governmentality of advanced
liberalism really came to the fore. Not only was the collaboration
between the government and the MAC further deepened, but Axworthy
also frequently invoked the concept of middle power to legitimate
and justify his radical diplomatic methods (cf. Axworthy, 1997).
Positive proof confi rming the success of such legitimisation is to
be found in the responses from focus groups and questionnaires that
were held and circulated during the fi nal con- ference in Ottawa
in 1997 by the company EKOS Research Associates. The overwhelming
majority of heads of states, PMs, and senior government offi ci-
als, who were the subject of this inquiry, associated the success
of the Ottawa process with the fact that it was being steered by a
group of middle powers, most notably Canada (Cameron et al., 1998,
7–13).
Axworthy had already begun to form a group of like-minded countries
led by middle powers Canada and Norway during the CCW Conference
and it essentially comprised the countries which had previously
imposed unilateral moratoria on export, sale, and transfer of APLs
and, in some cases, had even
14 See the UN Disarmament Yearbook of 1997, pp. 105–106, for
specifi c amendments. 15 The members of this informal coalition
were Canada, Norway, Austria, Belgium, Denmark,
Ireland, Switzerland, and Mexico. 16 I would like to thank Andrea
Teti for this formulation.
| Nikola Hynek
147
completely destroyed their stockpiles.17 After Canadian hopes were
dashed by the CCW Conference stalemate, it was the Canadian
government, namely Lloyd Axworthy as its Minister of Foreign
Affairs, and not the MAC as part of the ICBL, who redirected
Canadian efforts to a non-UN fast track line with its own
constitutive mechanism of self-selection, commonly referred to as
the Ottawa Process. Explanations in Rosenau‘s vein fail to take
into account the development of the Ottawa Process since the
dichotomic representation of states and nongovernmental actors
produces analytical blindedness to this phenomenon and these
accounts have therefore limited value to the extent of being
misleading.18
With respect to the advanced-liberal governmentality of the Ottawa
Pro- cess, it was the funding of the participation of
nongovernmental actors, the MAC, and more generally the ICBL, by
governments of like-minded count- ries, especially self-constructed
middle powers, that played an important role in the process of
knowledge production and organisation. The Ottawa Process itself
consisted of a set of meetings which were sponsored by and featured
self-selected like-minded states on the one hand and NGOs subsumed
under the ICBL on the other.19 The purpose of these meetings was to
jointly propose, discuss, and agree on a legally binding instrument
which would completely prohibit the entire category of APLs (cf.
Cameron, 1998; Lawson et al., 1998). The two most important
meetings were the ones organised in Norway in Sep- tember 1997 and
in Canada in December 1997. In respect of the former, not only did
the Norwegian government sponsor activities which enabled ICBL to
participate in knowledge production and sharing, but also, for the
fi rst time in the history of arms control, gave a nongovernmental
organization (ICBL) an offi cial seat in actual negotiations
(Williams and Goose, 1998, 43). As to the latter, this was the
actual conference where the previously negotiated and drafted
treaty, the Ottawa Convention,20 was signed by 122
governments.
The Canadian partnership between the government and the MAC, itself
a manifestation of the advanced-liberal governmentality, did not
come to an end, however, with the signing of the Convention. Since
then the Canadian government has donated more than US $130 million
to support anti-mine- related activities. A signifi cant portion
has been specifi cally directed towards education programs and
R&D concerning demining technologies, i.e. know- ledge-related
issues (ICBL, 2005; Maslen 2004, 149–51). The Canadian gover-
17 As one highly-ranking offi cial at the DFAIT put it, ‘We had CDN
$2 million to run the Ottawa Process and we used it very specifi
cally for [funding] conferences and meetings’ (personal interview
by autor, Ottawa, April 21st, 2006).
18 The formal name of the Ottawa Convention is ‘The Convention on
the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of
Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction.’
19 Canada’s R&D donation concerning demining technologies in
the period of 1997–2004 alone accounted for US $15 million (ICBL,
2005).
20 CIDA manages a part of the Canadian Landmine Fund, alongside the
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of
National Defence.
Humanitarian Arms Conrtrol and Middlepowerhood |
148
nment has also created The Canadian Landmine Fund from which the
majority of the above activities have been funded. Consequently,
these new functio- nal-symbiotic relations are refl ected in the
institutional discourse: to mention but two examples, the Canadian
International Development Agency (CIDA) emphasises the importance
of working closely with Canadian and internatio- nal NGOs in its
effort to end the suffering caused by landmines (CIDA, 2006); and
secondly, nowhere has the new governmentality of advanced
liberalism been more noticeable than in the case of a charity
focused on landmines, The Canadian Landmine Foundation (CLF).
Established by Axworthy when he was still Minister of Foreign
Affairs, this body has been the most important mine-related
non-governmental fundraising organisation in Canada. Not only does
the CLF stress the importance of the link forged between itself and
the government, but it also reveals that the citizen Axworthy has
been on its Board of Directors ever since (CLF, 2006).
Conclusion Unlike the global governance approach aiming at
providing a student of
IR with universal explanations, the governmentality approach makes
only limited generalisations and turns its attention to innovative
political micro- practices rather than macrostructural
transformations as sources of a change. Yet, it gives credit to
macrostructural conditions of possibility, or in Hooper-
Greenhill’s (1989, 63) term conditions of emergence (here
ideological depo- larization after the Cold War), in regard to late
manifestations of the change in governmentalities. Focusing on
specifi c national identities then, namely the self-constructed
category of middle power, is an integral part of this strategy of
limited generalisation of fi ndings, or as Price and Reus-Smit
(1998, 272) put it, ‘small-t’ truth claims. What is needed, then,
is an empirically more sensitive explanation than Rosenau’s
strategy of fi xing the dual ontology of the sta- te-centric and
transnational worlds to the institution of state sovereignty. For
Rosenau, all states are inevitably alike insofar as they are
understood through their generic national identities with state
sovereignty as the lowest common denominator. The implication is
clear: since states are painted as similar to one another, he
obviously cannot consider differences among them to be potential
sources of innovative political micropractices with a system-wide
effect. Con- sequently, Rosenau has to rely on the notion of the
state-centric world being challenged by the transnational world to
account for what he sees as systemic transformations in world
politics, thus becoming a prisoner of the logic of state
sovereignty as this institution is considered a crucial explanatory
factor.
One of the substantial differences distinguishing this article from
the self- referential celebratory commentaries so typical for the
landmine case is the refusal to treat conceptual categories as
meaningful kinds. An interesting parallel is discernable in the
thinking of Foucault and Cox: they work with the state and middle
powers respectively as with meaningless empty containers, or
| Nikola Hynek
149
forms. Since they are meaningless, any explanation that
uncritically depends on them is, inevitably, meaningless too. This
is because the form per se does not tell us anything about the
politics of the content, i.e. about the possible different ways of
organising the exercise of political sovereignty with regard to the
nation state, or about temporal differences in meaning as opposed
to consistency in political function with respect to
middlepowerhood. Foucault (1991) himself understands progressive
political practices as ones that seek to transform the relationship
between historically specifi c practices and their formation rules,
rather that some kind of ultimate quest for ideal necessities or
universal human subjectivities, which can be introduced into
society. Con- ceptualising both the nation-state and middle powers
as empty categories has thus an important corollary; it shows a
promising way of analysing changes in world politics without the
necessity of relying on normative and idealism- imbued accounts on
the one hand, and on radical calls for dismantling current
structures of world politics on the other.
So one can, to an extent, rely on traditional concepts, yet it is
worth looking at them from new perspectives, thereby presenting
heuristically innovative insights into what has widely been
believed to have immutable meanings. As the previous analysis of
governmental rationalities shows, despite the most central formal
categories being the same, the dynamics of the governmentality of
organised modernity and that of advanced liberalism were completely
dif- ferent. In regard to the former, it was exclusively the
government who produ- ced, funded and organised (military-based)
knowledge about landmines. The access of nongovernmental actors to
the security discourse was closed in spite of the fact that they
did produce their alternative individual-centred knowledge about
landmines. As to the latter, one can say that the government redefi
ned ‘a discursive fi eld in which exercising power is
“rationalized”’ (Lemke, 2001, 190) and forged a new
functional-symbiotic partnership, with nongovernmen- tal actors
supplying knowledge about landmines and the Canadian government
funding this enterprise and using this knowledge in interactions
with other states, both to consolidate the pro-ban coalition of
like-minded countries and to discipline noncompliers through the
exercise of peer pressure.
The attributes of advanced-liberal rationality examined above in
the case of Canada’s exercise of political sovereignty can be
compared to what Geoff- rey Wiseman (2004, 47) calls middle power
plurilateralism, i.e. the notion that offi cial entities (the
Canadian government) can be joined by nongovernmental actors (MAC
as the part of the ICBL) without necessitating reciprocal reco-
gnition as sovereign entities. This confi rms the argument that the
explanatory factor in the subject matter of this article – i.e.
changes in interactions between some governments and
nongovernmental actors – is not the institute of state sovereignty,
but the shift to the governmentality of advanced liberalism, speci-
fi cally the use of methods through which the individual became an
active poli- tical subject of government. Not only did middle
powers act in the landmine
Humanitarian Arms Conrtrol and Middlepowerhood |
150
case through nongovernmental actors, but they also gave these
non-state actors a free hand in their agenda setting and issue
framing as well as in strategy selection and networking. Moreover,
as the landmine case demonstrated, the knowledge about landmines
was produced entirely by non-state actors, and the governments of
self-constructed middle powers, most notably Canada and Norway,
were subsequently provided with that knowledge.
Finally, there is the question of what the Canadian government has
acquired by its advanced-liberal procedure. It is suggested that a
government that builds a functional-symbiotic relationship with
nongovernmental actors gains a com- parative advantage over other
states, insofar as it has at its disposal a rare and valuable type
of human-oriented knowledge about security which, in turn, ser- ves
as an important basis for the worldwide reputation and symbolic
status of a given country. Governments that have formed and
discursively legitimated their collective identity around the
category of middle power frequently build both informal and formal
coalitions of like-minded countries. For instance, as a result of
successful practices of an informal like-minded group led by middle
powers Canada and Norway in the landmine case, these two leading
countries signed the bilateral Lysøen Declaration of 1998, and a
year later expanded into The Human Security Network (HSN). As I
argued elsewhere (Hynek and Wai- sová 2006), the aim of such
platforms is not only to bring about a system-wide normative change
(e.g. a prohibitive regime, be it of antipersonnel landmines, small
arms and light weapons or child soldiers), but also socialising
other par- ticipating actors into accepting norms, methods and
procedures linked to this governmentality of advanced liberalism.
It is self-constructed middle powers who often assume leadership
and steer the direction of a like-minded group. The HSN is a fl
exible platform which can be, due to member governments’ close
cooperation with nongovernmental actors, regarded as the product of
a plurilateralist organisation informed by advanced-liberal
governmentality. Moreover, the subsequent institutionalisation of
Canada and Norway’s advan- ced-liberal experiences to the
plurilateral HSN demonstrates more systemati- sation in what was
previously ad-hoc attempts to conduct the governmentality of
advanced liberalism in world politics. Thus we might be able to
expect more of these developments to occur in the future.
| Nikola Hynek
Bibliography Axworthy, Lloyd.‘Canada and Human Security: The Need
for Leadership’.
International Journal 52(2):183–196, 1997. Bartelson, Jens. A
Genealogy of Sovereignty. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1995. Bátora, Jozef. ‘Does the European Union Transform
the Institution of Diplo-
macy?’. Journal of European Public Policy 12(1): 44–66, 2005.
Biersteker, Thomas J. and Weber, Cynthia. State Sovereignty as
Social Con-
struct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Burchell,
Graham, Gordon, Colin and Miller, Peter. ‘Preface’, in
Burchell,
Graham, Gordon, Colin and Miller, Peter, eds. The Foucault Effect:
Studies in Governmentality, ix–x. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1991.
Cameron, Maxwell A., Lawson, Robert J. and Tomlin, Brian W., eds.
To Walk Without Fear: The Global Movement to Ban Landmines. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1998.
Cameron, Maxwell A., Lawson, Robert J. and Tomlin, Brian W. ‘To
Walk without Fear’, in Cameron, Maxwell A., Lawson, Robert J. and
Tomlin, Brian W., eds. To Walk Without Fear: The Global Movement to
Ban Land- mines, 1–19. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Cameron, Maxwell A. ‘Democratization of Foreign Policy: The Ottawa
Pro- cess as a Model’, in Cameron, Maxwell A., Lawson, Robert J.
and Tomlin, Brian W., eds. To Walk Without Fear: The Global
Movement to Ban Land- mines, 424–447. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1998.
Canadian International Development Agency ‘Mine Action for
Development’,
http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/cida_ind.nsf/0/98FB1BC27E6FEB8C85256
CB70053EA09?OpenDocument (August 29, 2006). Canadian Landmine
Foundation http://www.canadianlandmine.org/clfBoard.cfm (accessed
March 25,
2006). Chapnick, Adam. ‘The Middle Power’, Canadian Foreign Policy
7(2):73–82,
1999. Cooper, Andrew F. ‘“Coalitions of Willing”: The Search for
Alternative Part-
ners in Canadian Diplomacy’. Paper presented to the Conference of
the Association for Canadian Studies, Grainau, Germany, February
18–20, 2000.
Cooper, Andrew. ‘Niche Diplomacy: A Conceptual Overview’, in Andrew
Cooper, ed. Niche Diplomacy: Middle Powers after the Cold War,
1–24. Houndmills: Macmillan Press, 1997.
Cox, Robert W. ‘Middlepowermanship, Japan, and the Future World
Order’, International Journal 44(4): 823–62, 1989.
Humanitarian Arms Conrtrol and Middlepowerhood |
152
Cronin, Bruce. Community under Anarchy: Transnational Identity and
the Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Columbia University Press,
1998.
Cruikshank, Barbara. The Will to Empower: Democratic Citizens and
Other Subjects. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press,
1999.
Dean, Mitchell M. Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern
Society. Lon- don: Sage, 1999.
Deleuze, Gilles. Foucault. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 1988.
Deleuze, Gilles. ‘What Is Dispositif?’, in Timothy J. Armstrong,
transl. Michel Foucault Philosopher, 159–167. New York: Routledge,
1992.
Edwards, Michael. ‘Civil Society and Global Governance’. Paper
Presented to the International Conference ‘On the Threshold: The UN
and Global Governance in the New Millennium’, January 19–21, 2000.
Tokyo: United Nations University, 2000.
English, John. ‘The Ottawa Process: Path Followed, Paths Ahead’.
Australian Journal of International Affairs 52(2):121–32,
1998.
Foucault, Michel. ‘Governmentality’, in Burchell, Graham, Gordon,
Colin and Miller, Peter, eds. The Foucault Effect: Studies in
Governmentality, 87–104. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1991.
Foucault, Michel. The Order of Things. New York: Vintage Books,
1974. Foucault, Michel. Foucault Live (Interviews, 1966–1984). New
York:
Semiotext(e), 1989. Giddens, Anthony. ‘Foreword’, in Anheier,
Helmut, Glasius, Marlies and
Kaldor, Mary, eds. Global Civil Society 2001, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2001.
Gordon, Colin. ‘Governmental Rationality: An Introduction’, in
Burchell, Graham, Gordon, Colin and Miller, Peter, eds. The
Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, 1–52, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1991.
Government of Canada Canada in the World: Government Statement.
Ottawa: DFAIT, 1995.
Hardt, Michael and Negri, Antonio. Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Uni- versity Press, 2000.
Held, David and McGrew, Anthony. ‘Introduction’, in Held, David and
McGrew, Anthony, eds. Governing Globalization: Power, Authority and
Global Governance. 1–24. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002.
Held, David and McGrew, Anthony, eds. Governing Globalization:
Power, Authority and Global Governance. Cambridge: Polity Press,
2002.
Hindess, Barry. ‘Liberalism – What’s in a Name?’, in Larner, Wendy
and Walters, William, eds. Global Governmentality: Governing
International Spaces, 23–39. London: Routledge, 2004.
| Nikola Hynek
153
Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean. ‘The Museum in the Diciplinary Society’,
in Pear- ce, Susan M., ed. Museum Studies in Material Culture,
61–72. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1989.
Horwood, Christopher. ‘Ideological and Analytical Foundations of
Mine Action: Human Rights and Community Impact’. Third World
Quarterly 24(5):939–54, 2003.
Hynek, Nikola and Waisová, Šárka. ‘Inovaní politické innosti a
instituci- onalizace agendy lidské bezpenosti: Pípadová studie
vztahu nevládních aktér s vládami vybraných lenských zemí Human
Security Network’. Politologický asopis 13(3): 267–284, 2006.
International Campaign to Ban Landmines ‘Mine Action Funding’,
http:// www.icbl.org/lm/2000/intro/funding.html (August 29, 2006),
2000.
International Campaign to Ban Landmines ‘Mine Action Funding’,
http:// www.icbl.org/lm/2005/intro/funding.html (August 29, 2006),
2005.
Jönsson, Christer and Langhorne, Richard, eds. Diplomacy. Volume
III: Prob- lems and Issues in Contemporary Diplomacy. London,
Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage, 2004.
Krause, Keith. ‘Multilateral Diplomacy, Norm Building, and UN
Conferences: The Case of Small Arms and Light Weapons’ Global
Governance 8(2): 247–63, 2002.
Larner, Wendy and Walters, William. ‘Introduction: Global
Governmentality’, in Larner, Wendy and Walters, William, eds.
Global Governmentality: Governing International Spaces. 1–20,
London: Routledge, 2004.
Lawson, Robert J. et al. ‘The Ottawa Process and the International
Movement to Ban Antipersonnel Mines’, in Cameron, Maxwell A.,
Lawson, Robert J. and Tomlin, Brian W., eds. To Walk Without Fear:
The Global Movement to Ban Landmines. 160–84, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1998.
Lemke, Thomas. ‘“The Birth of Bio-Politics”: Michel Foucault’s
Lecture at the Collège de France on Neo-Liberal Governmentality’,
Economy & Society 30(2): 190–207, 2001.
Liberal Party of Canada. Creating Opportunity: The Liberal Plan for
Canada. Ottawa: Liberal Party of Canada, 1993.
Lint, Jean. ‘The Anti-Personnel Mine-Ban Convention: An
Extraordinary Suc- cess’, UN Chronicle 40(3):19–21, 2003.
Maresca, Louis and Maslen, Stuart. The Banning of Anti-Personnel
Landmi- nes: The Legal Contribution of the International Committee
of the Red Cross 1955–1999. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2000.
Maslen, Stuart. Mine Action After Diana: Progress in the Struggle
Against Landmines. London and Ann Arbor, MI: Landmine Action in
association with Pluto Press, 2004.
Humanitarian Arms Conrtrol and Middlepowerhood |
154
Mathews, Robert, J. and McCormack, Timothy L. ‘The Infl uence of
Humani- tarian Principles in the Negotiation of Arms Control
Treaties’. International Review of the Red Cross 81(834):331–52,
1999.
Matthew, Richard A. and Rutherford, Kenneth R. ‘The Evolutionary
Dynamics of the Movement to Ban Landmines’. Alternatives
28(1):29–56, 2003.
Melakopides, Costas. Pragmatic Idealism: Canadian Foreign Policy
1945–1995. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press,
1998.
Pratt, Cranford. ‘Dominant Class Theory and Canadian Foreign
Policy: The Case of the Counter-Consensus’. International Journal
39 (Winter 1983–4): 99–135, 1983–4.
Price, Richard and Reus-Smit, Christian. ‘Dangerous Liaisons?
Critical Inter- national Theory and Constructivism’. European
Journal of International Relations 4(3):259–94, 1998.
Price, Richard. ‘Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil
Society Targets Land Mines’. International Organization
52(3):613–44, 1998.
Rose, Nikolas. ‘Government, Authority and Expertise in Advanced
Libera- lism’. Economy & Society 22(3):283–300, 1993.
Rosenau, James N. Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change
and Continuity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1990.
Rosenau, James N. ‘Governance, Order, and Change in World
Politics’, in Rosenau, James N. and Czempiel, Ernst-Otto, eds.
Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics.
1–29, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Rosenau, James N. Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier: Exploring
Gover- nance in a Turbulent World. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997.
Rosenau, James N. ‘Governance in a New Global Order’, in Held,
David and McGrew, Anthony, eds. Governing Globalization: Power,
Authority and Global Governance. 70–86, Cambridge: Polity Press,
2002.
Ruggie, John G. Constructing the World Polity: Essays on
International Insti- tutionalization. London: Routledge,
1998.
Sending, Ole J. and Neumann, Iver B. ‘Governance to
Governmentality: Ana- lyzing NGOs, States, and Power’,
International Studies Quarterly 50(3): 651–672, 2006.
Simpson, John and Weiner, Edmund, eds. The Oxford English
Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Thakur, Ramesh. ‘The Ottawa Convention on Landmines: A Landmark
Humanitarian Treaty in Arms Control’. Global Governance
5(3):273–302, 1999.
Thomsen, Robert C. and Hynek, Nikola. ‘Keeping the Peace and
National Unity: Canada’s National and International Identity
Nexus’. International Journal 61(4): 845–858, 2006.
| Nikola Hynek
155
Tomlin, Brian W. ‘On a Fast Track to a Ban: The Canadian Policy
Process’, in Cameron, Maxwell A., Lawson, Robert J. and Tomlin,
Brian W., eds. To Walk Without Fear: The Global Movement to Ban
Landmines. 185–211. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
United Nations. The UN Disarmament Yearbook. New York: UN Press,
1997. Wagner, Peter. A Sociology of Modernity: Liberty and
Discipline. London and
New York: Routledge, 1994. Walker, Rob B. J. Inside/Outside:
International Relations as Political Theory.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Warmington, Valerie
and Tuttle, Celina. ‘The Canadian Campaign’, in Came-
ron, Maxwell A., Lawson, Robert J. and Tomlin, Brian W., eds. To
Walk Without Fear: The Global Movement to Ban Landmines. 48–59.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Welsh, Jennifer. At Home in the World. Toronto: Harper Collins,
2004. Wendt, Alexander. ‘Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The
Social Construction
of Power Politics’, International Organization 46(2):391–425, 1992.
Williams, Jody and Goose, Stephen. ‘The International Campaign to
Ban
Landmines’, in Cameron, Maxwell A., Lawson, Robert J. and Tomlin,
Brian W., eds. To Walk Without Fear: The Global Movement to Ban
Land- mines. 20–47, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Williams, Jody. ‘David with Goliath: International Cooperation and
the Cam- paign to Ban Landmines’, Harvard International Review
(Fall 2000): 88–94, 2000.
Wiseman, Geoffrey. ‘“Polylateralism” and New Modes of Global
Dialogue’, in Jönsson, Christer and Langhorne, Richard, eds.
Diplomacy. Volume III: Problems and Issues in Contemporary
Diplomacy. 36–57, London, Thou- sand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage,
2004.
Humanitarian Arms Conrtrol and Middlepowerhood |